Key topics:

• Trump and Zelenskyy’s meeting turned into a heated confrontation.

• The Ukraine minerals deal lacked security guarantees or aid commitments.

• Trump falsely claimed Europe contributed less than the US to Ukraine.

By Ivo Vegter*

There were embarrassing scenes in the Oval Office on Friday, where Trump and Zelenskyy held what was supposed to be an amical press conference to sign an agreement.

The meeting degenerated into an acrimonious shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance ganging up on Zelenskyy, demanding respect and gratitude like some two-bit mafia boss and his consigliere.

It was widely described as a “disaster”, and sent shockwaves around the world as geopolitical tectonic plates shifted.

But perhaps that is what president Trump wanted. I’ll explain, but it will take more than just this article. Let’s start with the infamous press conference itself.

Minerals deal

The meeting between Zelenskyy, Trump, Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which lasted almost 50 minutes, turned nasty at the 40-minute mark when the US vice president undiplomatically butted into the conversation to attack Zelenskyy.

The discussion, before the assembled White House press corps, was supposed to seal an agreement by which Ukraine would turn over half of the revenue of future mining and minerals projects to a reconstruction development fund jointly owned by Ukraine and the US.

The deal, which changed substantially since Trump demanded that Ukraine use its mineral resources to repay $500 billion for military aid previously provided, did not establish any security guarantees for Ukraine, nor did it commit the US to providing military or financial aid to Ukraine. Actual US revenue from the deal would be dependent on the success of private-sector participation in future Ukrainian mineral resource developments.

The unstated implication was that having commercial interests in Ukraine, the US would have a stake in the country’s security and stability, and could therefore be relied upon to support peace in Ukraine.

The stage was set for the agreement to be signed, when the press conference turned unexpectedly dramatic.

“Much less money”

Trump claimed that “Europe gave much less money” towards the defence of Ukraine than the US, which is false.

According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which tracks support for Ukraine, the countries of Europe have contributed a total of $187.3 billion towards financial, military and humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. This figure counts both direct aid and contributions to European Union (EU) aid, but not future commitments. It also doesn’t count the estimated cost of sheltering refugees, which falls most heavily on Poland and Germany, and of which the US incurs none.

Compared to Europe’s $187.3 billion, the US has contributed $122.8 billion in financial, military and humanitarian aid. That is less than a quarter of the $500 billion that Trump appears to think the US has lavished on Ukraine’s defence, and of that, only $18.3 billion came in the form of financial loans.

European countries have contributed 56.3% of all aid to Ukraine, while the US has contributed 36.9%. If you do count future commitments (though those of the US must now be in serious doubt), geographic Europe still comes out ahead of the US, though by a smaller margin.

As a share of GDP, the top 17 supporters of Ukraine are all European countries, led by Estonia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Poland and Sweden, five of which share a border with Russia. The United States is the 18^th largest donor by share of GDP.

(Note that this ranking differs from that indicated on the Kiel Institute’s interactive map because the map does not reflect individual European country contributions to European Union aid to Ukraine. I used the raw dataset to find these numbers. If you exclude EU contributions, the US ranks 12^th. If, on the other hand, you include refugee-related costs, the US contribution to the defence of Ukraine ranks a lowly 28^th in the world as a share of GDP.)

In heavy weapon support, Europe also outranks the United States, with a total supply of €19 billion’s worth, compared to €13.8 billion. EU countries, led by Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have provided an average of 0.11% of their own heavy weapon stocks to Ukraine, compared to the US supply of 0.8%.

“They really gave a lot, Mr. President,” said Zelenskyy.

“But they gave much less,” retorted Trump.

Replied Zelenskyy, looking embarrassed at having to contradict Trump: “No, no… no.”

The only way in which one could interpret that “Europe gave much less money” than the US is if you disaggregate Europe’s total into individual country contributions, but given their much smaller size compared to the US, only a sleazy real estate salesman trying to give his own country undue credit would do that.

Public correction

Trump also had to be publicly corrected by French president Emmanuel Macron during a meeting in the Oval Office less than a fortnight ago, when Trump claimed that European support for Ukraine came in the form of loans, and that unlike the US, Europe stood to be repaid.

In his meeting with Zelenskyy, he repeated this claim anyway, though it is, at best, an exaggeration.

First, this applies only to financial allocations, and not to military or humanitarian contributions, which are obviously non-repayable.

Even then, only 76.7% of the contributions from Europe came in the form of loans. For its part, 39.4% of US financial aid consisted of loans. So while it is true that a larger share of America’s financial support came in the form of grants, it isn’t true that all of it did, as Trump implied, nor is it true that all of Europe’s support came in the form of loans.

It is also notable that of the financial allocations, which include loans, grants and guarantees, the US has only disbursed 62.3%, compared to 86.7% for European countries. Ukrainian fighters have yet to see a lot of America’s support on the ground.

Sartorial style

When Trump tried to draw an equivalence between the tragedy of Russian and Ukrainian deaths in the war, Zelenskyy rightly interjected: “They came to our territory.”

Trump repeatedly posed the unfalsifiable hypothetical that if he had been president, this war would have never started, because he would have made a deal. He repeatedly attacked his predecessor, Joe Biden, saying that he was “very incompetent”. He aimed similar barbs at his other predecessor, Barack Obama.

Things turned even more insulting when Brian Glenn, a far-right media personality who is reportedly the boyfriend of right-wing congresscritter and conspiracist nutcase Marjorie Taylor Green, demanded to know why Zelenskyy didn’t wear a suit.

“You’re the highest level in this country’s office and you refuse to wear a suit,” Glenn said, apparently convinced that sartorial style was a subject of high import during high-level geopolitical negotiations. “I just want to see if you… do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of this office.”

Zelenskyy was wearing military fatigues with the Ukrainian coat of arms embroidered on the left breast, as he has done on all occasions to signal that his country is at war.

“I will wear a costume [which means “suit” in Ukrainian] after this war will finish,” Zelenskyy replied. “Maybe something like yours, maybe something better, I don’t know. We will see. Maybe something cheaper.”

Winston Churchill wore one-piece air raid overalls known as a “siren suit” for his Oval Office meeting with Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. And where was Glenn when Elon Musk traipsed around the Oval Office in a T-shirt and baseball cap?

The only people being disrespectful here were Brian Glenn, the girlfriend who declared herself “so proud” of him, and the president who repeatedly diminished the office of the president by insulting his predecessors.

Zelenskyy answered with grace and humour, qualities that could not be attributed to many of those present in the Oval Office on that day.

Security guarantees

Trump brushed off a question about security guarantees, saying that he didn’t want to talk about security until a deal between Ukraine and Russia to stop shooting was done.

He said European countries were committing to sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, and America might, conceivably, do so as well, but he didn’t think – he said while Zelenskyy shook his head – that security guarantees would be all that important once a deal was done. He also noted that under a minerals agreement, the US would have workers in Ukraine, seeming to suggest that America’s new economic interests in Ukraine would be sufficient to constitute a security guarantee.

Zelenskyy pressed the issue, pointing out that Russian president Vladimir Putin had broken ceasefire and other commitments 25 times since his first military offensive against Ukraine in 2014.

Trump interrupted, saying that “he never broke to me [sic]”, but Zelenskyy retorted, “No, no, you were the president,” referring to Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2020.

“That’s why we’ll never accept just a ceasefire,” Zelenskyy continued. “It will not work without security guarantees.”

He added that even while they were meeting in the Oval Office, having discussions of which Putin was aware, Russia was using ballistic missiles against Ukraine.

He said that European guarantees were premised on having the United States as a backstop, because Europe did not want to divide the Western alliance by acting without the United States.

Zelenskyy emphasised that Putin really hates Ukrainians, and doesn’t respect Ukraine. Putin has repeatedly stated that there is no such nation as Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian language, or Ukrainian culture. “He wants to destroy us,” Zelenskyy said.

For that reason, he said, the agreement was “a good start”, but it would not stop Putin. He also pointed out that according to the ancient rules of war, the aggressor − and not the victim – pays for reparations, suggesting that frozen Russian assets in Europe, amounting to about $300 billion, could be used for this purpose, but it wouldn’t be enough.

Trump later said that if he thought Russia would invade and threaten America’s new mineral interests in Ukraine, he “wouldn’t make a deal”. He derided a CNN reporter for even asking such a “ridiculous question”.

NATO

Trump asserted that he wanted to be a neutral mediator, rather than taking sides, but that the US remained committed to NATO, although he felt the Europeans had to “step up more than they have”, repeating that they were in for “far less than we are”, and “they should be at least equal”.

Ukraine is, of course, not a member of NATO, and is therefore not entitled to Article 5 common defence. However, it aspires to become a member, even though the new US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has said that he doesn’t foresee any peace agreement which would include NATO membership for Ukraine.

The contributions of NATO members to common defence remains a matter of some controversy between the US and Europe. Hegseth and Trump have both called for member countries to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, which is two and a half times the target of 2% that NATO set in 2014.

Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, has said that NATO members should target 3% of GDP in future.

The US itself spends only 3.4% of its GDP on defence, although its commitments as the leading global superpower are far broader than just NATO.

Three quarters of NATO’s 32 member states spend more than the agreed target of 2% of GDP on defence, which is up from only three in 2014. The laggards are Canada, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Countries with Russian borders spend the most on defence. Poland leads with more than 4%, while Estonia and Latvia both spend north of 3%, as does Greece. Lithuania spends nearly 3%.

The result is that US defence spending makes up about two thirds of NATO’s combined defence spending, but unlike most other NATO countries, that spending is not confined to defending the interests of NATO alone.

The US funds only 16% of NATO’s operational budget, which is equal to the contribution of Germany, which has only one sixth of the US’s GDP and one quarter of its population. The United Kingdom and France contribute more than 10% each to NATO’s budget, while Italy, Canada and Spain each contribute more than 5%.

In short, the claim that Europe isn’t pulling its weight in NATO, and the US is spending far more than European NATO members, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, either.

Trump also could not resist blowing his own trumpet, claiming that he has stopped many wars, some of which nobody had ever heard of, and some even before they started. He didn’t name any wars or any countries, so there’s nothing in this claim that anyone can verify.

Defending Europe

Zelenskyy took the opportunity to explain that Europe was very important in any negotiation, since Ukraine is holding a defensive line that protects Europe, and European countries understand that.

“As the president has said, you have a very nice ocean [between the US and Russia],” he said. “But if we will not stay [the course], Russia will go further, to the Baltics and to Poland.”

The Baltics, he added, once were part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and Putin wants to reclaim them for the Russian Empire.

When Trump began to talk about the destruction in Ukraine, Zelenskyy was quick to counter that while Russia has inflicted much damage, Ukraine still has beautiful cities where people work and children go to school. “Maybe it’s Putin sharing this information that he destroyed us. He lost 700 000 soldiers.”

Trump claimed that he knows that Putin wants to make a deal, because he knows Putin very well and “making deals is all I do”. His claim to knowing what Putin wants led to lengthy digressions on the “Russia hoax”, in which Russian agents were accused of election interference, the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, and how massive his election victory in 2024 was.

Ambush

It was at this point that Vance entered the conversation. He asserted that Biden had talked tough about Putin, which achieved nothing, and that maybe the path to peace was through diplomacy.

This seemed strange, because diplomatically, the press conference broke every rule in the book. It is an age-old diplomatic custom to field equal delegations to any discussion. Pitting one foreign head of state against half the cabinet of another country is just not done.

Zelenskyy responded by pointing out that Ukraine had tried diplomacy, on many occasions, and had signed both bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements involving France and Germany. At the time, he was assured that Putin would not go further than annexing Crimea, given the signed agreements. Yet Putin broke those agreements when he invaded in 2022.

“What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?” he asked.

Vance took offence, and said that it was “disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media”.

He told Zelenskyy that he ought to be thankful to America, instead of attacking it.

When Zelenskyy tried to answer, saying that the US is protected by an ocean, so they don’t feel Russia’s aggression now, but would feel it in the future, Trump tagged into the fight, saying, “You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

The conversation degenerated into an all-out fight from there.

“You’re not in a good position,” Trump said, raising his voice. “You don’t have the cards right now. With us you start having cards.”

“We’re not playing cards,” Zelenskyy said. “I’m a president in a war. I’m very serious.”

“You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump shouted, wagging his finger in Zelenskyy’s face. “You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, to this country, that’s backed you, far more than a lot of people say they should have.”

“Say thank you!”

“Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting,” interjected Vance, also raising his voice.

“Lots of times,” said Zelenskyy. (Technically, that was not true for this meeting, but he has reportedly thanked the United States on at least 33 separate occasions in the past.)

The scene was like two bullies ganging up on the foreign kid. The foreign kid didn’t back down, while the bullies demanded he grovel.

“We gave you, through this stupid president [Biden] $350 billion”, Trump shouted, though that number is not documented anywhere, and overstates America’s documented contribution by a factor of three. “If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.”

“In three days, yes, I heard it from Putin,” retorted Zelenskyy.

“It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this,” said Trump.

“Just say thank you,” said Vance, while Zelenskyy said, “I said a lot of times thank you.”

The exchange continued, making it perhaps the most undignified conversation ever to emerge from the White House.

When two heads of state meet, a vice president has no business butting in to challenge one of them, ordering him to be thankful. Zelenskyy, already at a disadvantage because the meeting was held in English, was ambushed.

It is arguable that this was the wrong forum for Zelenskyy to say that a ceasefire had to be conditional upon security guarantees, although in fairness to him, the discussion was guided by questions from the media. Even so, the way in which Trump and Vance dressed him down and tried to humiliate him was, frankly, disgraceful.

“Tough guy”

“What if Russia breaks a ceasefire,” another reporter asked?

“What if anything?” snarked Trump. “What if a bomb dropped on your head right now?”

He claims that Russia broke ceasefires under Biden because they didn’t respect him – “that was not a smart person,” he said – implying that Putin wouldn’t do so while Trump is president.

“They respect me,” he shouted. “Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch-hunt… Hunter Biden… Hillary Clinton… Shifty Adam Schiff… he had to go through it, and he did go through it, and we didn’t end up in a war. He was accused of all that stuff, but he had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting…”

Trump continued to digress, before turning back to Zelenskyy: “I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy. I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave, but you’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position. But you’re not acting at all thankful, and that’s not a nice thing.”

With that, Trump declared: “I think we’ve seen enough.”

Ever the showman, he added, “This is going to be great television, I’ll tell you that.”

Zelenskyy left the Oval Office without signing the minerals deal. In a separate room, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Ukrainian delegation to leave the White House.

Fallout

The fallout from this press conference reverberated around the world. Later this week, we’ll get to part two, in which we look at how exactly this has changed the geopolitical landscape.

It looks like Trump simply overturned the chess board, but perhaps he is playing 4D-chess after all. Not that America will be better off for it, but that’s a story best left for later.